The Eagle and the Bear: how a NATO field excercise could have started World War 3
- Thread starter J0hn
- Start date
one NATO exercise really DID come close to launching WW3- it was in 1984 and included Exercise Lionheart which was the largest British Army exercise for over 30 years-it coincided with a regular Reforger exercise and of course 1st Pz Div also took part (1st Pz was in 1Br Corps area). Damn close run thing....
Minor point re the Kirov and Frunze-these would be rapidly shadowed by a NATO submarine -bearing in mind that throughout the WHOLE of the Cold War the Sov Navy NEVER managed to track a Brit sub I can imagine that Kirov and Frunze would rapidly have reached the bottom of the Baltic...
Also look how rapidly the US and UK forces forged through Iraqi forces in Desert Storm 1 using kit very largely similiar to that in this scenario-just something to bear in mind. NATO pilots also have a darn sight more flying hours that Sov-the Sov display pilots as seen at Farnborough and Paris doing the amazing displays were a minority.
Minor point re the Kirov and Frunze-these would be rapidly shadowed by a NATO submarine -bearing in mind that throughout the WHOLE of the Cold War the Sov Navy NEVER managed to track a Brit sub I can imagine that Kirov and Frunze would rapidly have reached the bottom of the Baltic...
Also look how rapidly the US and UK forces forged through Iraqi forces in Desert Storm 1 using kit very largely similiar to that in this scenario-just something to bear in mind. NATO pilots also have a darn sight more flying hours that Sov-the Sov display pilots as seen at Farnborough and Paris doing the amazing displays were a minority.
J0hn
Banned
Dont worry more updates coming. Time constraints have prevented me from updating as often as I'd like. But I havent forgotten it.
MacCaulay
Banned
Did you guys ever hear how sick and tired I am of nuclear weapons in fiction? They're the lazy writer's plot device.
Besides, there's nothing like a good, old fashioned, large scale, brutal, and conventional war.
MacCaulay
Banned
Besides, there's nothing like a good, old fashioned, large scale, brutal, and conventional war.
Heaven forbid folks should have to write character studies about people going through conventional combat. Lord knows nothing like "character development" should ever come near war fiction.
Not slamming this particular timeline, it's just a pet peeve of mine. People seem to use it just to show off how edgy they are or something. Either that or they've written themselves into a corner and it's the literary equivalent of the writer pointing over the reader's shoulder and yelling "WHAT'S THAT!?" while he/she runs away.
You want the cliches of the doe-eyed youth who gets hardened by the horrors he sees? The grizzled veteran who inspires and probably dies for the character development of the protagonist, probably passing the torch somewhere along the way? The guy who snaps and can't take it and either offs himself or starts collecting enemy body parts?
MacCaulay
Banned
Anymore, they've stopped being cliches if they're handled right.
The cliche is the doe-eyed youth who gets hardened by the horrors he sees through his Mk. 5 infrared goggles while driving in an M1A2 Abrams tank with an L7 105mm gun firing Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds at T-72M1 tanks of the Iraqi Hammurabi Division.
You know?
The man is right.
Cliches stop being cliches when another techno gun porn is slathered over them. Just ask Hollywood.
This is the main reason I haven't gotten my TL off the ground yet. Trying to develop one's character(s), getting them to mature (especially on a battlefield), without taking the humanity out of the equation is extremely difficult. As somebody mentioned, that's one of Clancy's biggest problems.
MacCaulay
Banned
Not to toot my own horn, but try Soviet Invasion of Iran, 1981 as a textbook. Most folks tend to agree that the characterization in it's above average, anyway.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=129583
My tip is to concentrate on a limited amount of characters: 5 or 6 at the most, and to not make them high ranking. Then you don't write the chapters as epics. Just write them as vignettes that are self-contained. If you can't post a chapter by itself in the Writer's Forum and have it make at least some sense, then the characters and situations in it aren't fleshed out enough to stand on their own.
Thanks. Iv'e gotten a little better at dialogue, it's just whenever I try writing something, I end up with a few lines and my brain stops functioning. I know what I want to happen, but accomplishing that is the crux of the issue.
Well if an author does write a WW3 in the '80s TL they are they 'Elephant in the Room'. NATO doesn't have the resources to fight a long conventional war and Soviet doctrine was for early use of all of its nuclear arsenal.
If the Soviets reach the Rhine in this TL then all bets are off.
If you want to eliminate the early use of nuclear weapons have a POD in which tactical weapons are eliminated by treaty and both sides alter their doctrine to a longer conventional phase (blowing no trumpets of course
).The M1A2 has a 120mm gun, btw.
Macragge1
Banned
Well if an author does write a WW3 in the '80s TL they are they 'Elephant in the Room'. NATO doesn't have the resources to fight a long conventional war and Soviet doctrine was for early use of all of its nuclear arsenal.
Beat me to it; it's pretty hard to write anything about a NATO/WP major war in the 80s without mentioning nuclear weapons - that's what they were there for, after all.
I don't know if I necessary agree that having nuclear weapons in fiction is inherently lazy (not biased at all). Sure, they can be overused for shock value, as many things can, but I don't think that means that they always are. Certainly in my TL, they're a major point but one that I hope aren't used in a lazy way - certainly timelines such as The Cuban Missile War or even films such as Threads or even The Road utilise them masterfully.
If the Soviets reach the Rhine in this TL then all bets are off.
If you want to eliminate the early use of nuclear weapons have a POD in which tactical weapons are eliminated by treaty and both sides alter their doctrine to a longer conventional phase (blowing no trumpets of course
The M1A2 has a 120mm gun, btw.
I'll blow it (ooh,pardon) - http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=859
Best conventional WW3 story I've ever read, for sure.
You cannot compare the Iraqi air defence network to the air defence network the Soviets had installed in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
Do not forget, that the Soviets usually sold inferior/downgraded equipment to their clients and kept the good stuff for themselves.
Penetrating Soviet defenses in Eastern Europe would certainly not have been easy for NATO. It can be done, but it would not have been easy.
As far as the fighter pilots' skills are concerned, I'd like to reming to you, that US Air Force pilots performed rather bad in their F-4s over Vietnam, when facing Mig-19s/21s in the late 60s.
Don't forget, those were Vietnamese pilots flying for their country and our boys in their Phantoms were flying under overly restrictive ROEs.